On 24 Jul 2001, David Wagner wrote: > Let me propose as a starting point that we don't want any hooks > that are obviously insecure (such as being vulnerable to a race > condition). If we all agree on this as a starting point for the > discussion, then maybe that will allow us to settle the issue of > how many ioctl() hooks we want in the same way we settle the issue > for every other type of hook. (Am I missing some complexity?) > Let me add my 0.2 virtual votes to this toward "seconding it". There is some concern about the word "obviously"... perhaps change it to "demonstrably?" I fail to see how there could be a complexity in this requirement that supercedes the obvious advantage... LSM should not be subject to demonstrable insecurities which work against its middle letter. Remotely suspect you're setting us up for an argument, but it sounds like it should be a good one. ;) J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 24 2001 - 15:52:29 PDT